Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement[i], decided on a Bail appeal filed by Kalvakuntla Kavitha (‘Appellant’), who was denied bail by the Delhi High Court on the grounds that since the Appellant was a highly qualified and well-accomplished woman therefore not entitled to beneficiary provision for women under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’). The prosecution agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) and the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’), had levelled charges of corruption and money laundering against the Appellant, which required them to satisfy the twin conditions under the PMLA for granting bail.
Facts
The CBI had registered a case under s. 120B read with s. 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), alleging criminal conspiracy in formulating Delhi’s Excise Policy of 2021-2022 by intentionally creating or leaving loopholes in the policy to be exploited later.
During the investigation, the CBI issued notice to the Appellant under s. 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’); the Appellant did not respond.
Subsequently, the ED arrested the Appellant on 15.03.2024, wherefore the CBI interrogated the Appellant in judicial custody on 06.04.2024.
Further, the Appellant was arrested by the CBI on 11.04.2024 for active involvement in the Delhi liquor policy case and remanded to the CBI's custody.
The Appellant filed the bail applications on the grounds that a woman accused could be granted bail without having to satisfy the twin conditions under s. 45(1) of the PMLA.
The Delhi High Court denied bail to the Appellant on 01.07.2024 on the ground that the Appellant was not a ‘vulnerable woman’ for grant of special treatment under s. 45(1) of the PMLA after placing reliance on the decision of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement[ii].
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant and quashed the order passed by the Delhi High Court. It granted bail to the Appellant while making the following observations:
The custody of the Appellant was not necessary for the investigation, given that in both the cases filed by the CBI and the ED, the charge sheet and the complaint were filed before the Court.
The Supreme Court placed reliance on its order passed in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement[iii] to observe that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. It reiterated the principle that ‘bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.’
The proviso to s. 45(1) of the PMLA would entitle a woman to special treatment, and the order passed by the Delhi High Court denying bail while observing that the proviso to s. 45(1) is only applicable to ‘vulnerable woman’ is erroneous and misdirected.
Our Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must guide the interpretation of bail provisions, even under stringent statutes like the PMLA. This decision, along with recent jurisprudence following Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), signals a shift towards a more balanced approach to bail that upholds fundamental rights and prevents undue incarceration based on rigid statutory interpretations.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail provisions under s. 45 of the PMLA must be interpreted to protect fundamental rights. The Court highlighted that the legislature intended to provide relief to certain categories, such as women, without imposing additional criteria. This ruling serves as a reminder that legal interpretations should advance the purpose of the law and not restrict access to justice by undermining constitutional safeguards.
End Notes
[i] CRL. A. NO. 3522 OF 2024 : [2024] 165 taxmann.com 794 (SC).
[ii] (2024) 6 SCC 401.
[iii] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.
Authored by Maarij Ahmad, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
25-08-2026
12
min read
A Game of Treasure Hunt: Service of GST Notices and Orders under S. 169 of the CGST Act and the Emerging Split Among High Courts
Luxmi Traders addresses a fundamental question in GST adjudication: can a notice or order be treated as duly served merely because it is uploaded on the Common Portal? The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that portal-only service, absent the requisite statutory and notified basis, cannot by itself defeat a taxpayer’s remedies. With Madras and Allahabad adopting different approaches and Delhi subsequently applying Luxmi Traders, the issue reflects a significant divergence in judicial approach awaiting authoritative resolution.
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.